69 Comments

I was just going to say the same thing. If Anandtech isn't going to cover Linux, then just remove the tab and call it a day. If you are going to even pretend to make Linux a priority, then perhaps at least ONE article per YEAR would be a nice way to start. No articles since 2005 is just embarrassing.

Ryan offered that Ubuntu article well over a year ago, and has offered nothing but excuses since then. I realize you are all busy, and I don't fault him for anything besides not coming out and saying that Linux isn't a priority at Anandtech. Reply

Yepp! He/they did!
What happened to that one? They've probably lost it down the drain somewhere. Or is M$ paying them to not favor any other O/S now...? Somehow it seems that AT lost all interrest in Linux. Bad move... Reply

And having complied tons of kernels over the years, performance can range greatly in what options you use in your kernel. I found that the CFQ scheduler can hurt performance since it tries to spread out cpu usage evenly between all processes.

That and also with linux you could assign a single process to a single core. Alternatively you could "nice" the application ie lower priority and still have a really usable system.

People in our forums will compile stuff on one cpu and use the other for playing games while having tons of crap running in the background, and report their seemingly invincible performance feeling.

Although I don't know much about Suse, I'd say this review is pretty well done for people that don't "get under the hood." Yet if you do get your hands a little wet with nice and taskset, you can do just about anything and hardly feel a slow down. Reply

Why no Shake vs. Shake, sure 3.5 isn't available, but 3.01(?) would be fine. Where's GIMP on windows? NewTek's LightWave® 3D 7.5b != ScreamerNet 7.5b , Why not go Blender vs. Blender or Maya vs. Maya? Who uses Mozilla Composer as an alternative to Dreamweaver as opposed to the myriad of other available web dev software? Outlook? what about Thunderbird on Windows? XMMS vs. iTunes doesn't make sense, they're different types of applications, try Rhythmbox. WinZip vs. Gzip doesn't make sense, try comparing a GUI tool. MS Office vs. OO.o, at least try the windows versions! If you're comparing workalikes as opposed to the same software, don't compare Nero vs. Nero, the Linux version is terrible.

Suggestion: WaveLab is a do-all of audio manipulation, not the type of software that has direct analog under Linux, try looking at suites of software that can be used to the same effect all through a similar interface (e.g. JACK). Antivirus? ClamAV sounds decent, did you even look? Reply

Has any one pointed out the mod15 error using the sil3112/3114 and the seagate hd's the hardware in the article seems to suggest a conflict on the amd system. I had this same issue and it killed all my speeds for things like transcoding and any thing hd intencive. Reply

I was just wondering what kernel and kernel settings you were using. Since the article was on multi-tasking it seems especially relevent since the development of low-latency/preemptable options in recent years!

For the web browsing multitasking scenario...
"Even with additional instances of FireFox, the import times are much faster than the Windows counterpart of this benchmark. "

maybe i'm missing something, but the SLOWEST time on Windows is only about 30s slower than the FASTEST time on linux. The X2 4200+ is 45s slower in linux...

Also:
The chart for the compile while gaming (gaming benchmark 2) is pointless since it doesn't show -j3 for the single core processors. Even on single core processors, there is some benefit to be had in situations where job1 is waiting on the disk, job2 can finish its compile and in turn wait on the disk while job1 uses the CPU.
For instance: the way it is (with the -j1 setting) the equivalently clocked 4200+ and 3500+ perform about the same. What's to say they won't with -j3 as well?Reply

Comment: I enjoyed the article...it may or may not be biased, but coupled with the community's comments enabled me to get the sense of relative performance I was hoping for.

My Environment: I currently have an Athlon 3800+ configuration, 1 GB 2-2-2-5 Corsair Memory, and write Fortran77 programs to do simulation. Recently changing last year's GCC compiler to Intel's 9.0 auto-parallelizing compiler yielded a 31% decrease in run time. I do simulations that need to be done dozens of times a week that take about 15 hours apiece. These are heavy in floating point calculations with some trigonometric functions as well. This is done for fun (I am retired).

My Question: I am planning (in about 6 to 8 months) to upgrade to either a Four Dual-Core Opteron system (fastest chips then available) or a Four Processor Itanium-2 System. This is strictly for the simulation (number crunching) application. Comparisons in this arena are even more difficult to come by than those in this article. You guys do not seem short on opinion and I would appreciate yours...plus any references you would suggest to help figure out which way to go.

#49, the real problem is that Kubicki's articles never have the detail of benchmarks carried out under Windows XP. We get fewer benchmarks and less hardware tested. Sure, there aren't as many programs under Linux available, perhapss, but that's no reason for him to cut out all single-app tests. People will frequently be running one single-threade or multithreaded app on dual-core CPUs, and they will also be running only two apps at once. Neither such scenario is represented well in this benchmark.

This article does not provide enough information to draw conclusions about which CPU will be best under Linux.Reply

just a couple minor nits to pick, and this goes back to my whole 'you guys really need to hire an articles editor' thing that i've been harping on for 2 or 3 years
on page 8, it says haplessly, where you should probably have happily. haplessly isn't a very positive word.
and, as someone else has already pointed out, the manchester is not the $558 processor in this round up.

if you get in a faster core (maybe a 1 meg l2 cache version), could you please update the article? thanks.Reply

4400+ would have been nice, but it's hard to get all the CPUs we'd like for every article. The 4800+ is in a league of its own as far as price, so including that would dictate that we also include the P4XE 840. Delaying articles for a few weeks while we try to get CPUs sorted out is not very useful either..There will be future articles, so don't get too worried.Reply

I see that "Norton AntiVirus 2004" is listed with "No Suggestions yet" in the "Linux Application" column. I'd like to make a suggestion : ClamAV - ClamAV is a very capable free virus scanner that runs on Linux - check it out at http://www.clamav.net/Reply

He clearly stated that this test was based on the best bang for the buck. For all of you who wanted to see tests with higher end processors, you should have stopped reading the article and waited for one that met your needs. Don't complain and ask for stuff that the article was not designed to inform us about. Reply

Why bother to test the 840 D and draw no conclusions about it? And can you at least fix the price you quote in the one-sided swipe at the X2? I've given up on your explaining why the price of the 840 isn't also "paying through the nose," but at least fix the obvious error either in the text or the price list above it.

"we have left a lot of not-so-subtle hints as to our feelings concerning performance between the two"
Ah, you were talking about Windows and Linux there. Fits for CPUs too in this case.Reply

You guys need to remember that this is Linux, so for everyone out there hollering that this article contradicts all the others out there that you read, all the others out there that you did read were most likely Windows based.Reply

I agree that including only the X2 4200+ is a mistake. For ages, we saw benchmarks of new AMD cpus vs every Intel proc in the field, regardless of price. Kubicki shows up and insists on culling all AMD cpus from the lineup except one priced similarly(or even priced lower than) the Intel offerings in the test. I remember his initial, and rather controversial, article in which he did Linux benchmarks with a 3.6 ghz P4 vs a A64 3500+ Newcastle. Stupid! Where's the 4400+ and 4800+? If you don't have the hardware, DON'T DO THE REVIEW. If AMD has superior processors out at a much higher price, that's because AMD has better chips right now, and they damn well ought to be included in the review as well. Throw in an 840EE if you're so inclined.

FURTHERMORE, where are the single-app tests and dual-app tests? All we have are contrived multitasking tests. This is about 1/3rd of the entire content of Anandtech's initial X2 review in a Windows environment. The Pentium Ds don't look so great when you put them into a scenario in which it's running one or two apps alone. Funny how Kubicki neglected to run any such tests in this article.

This article has too little hardware, and too few tests. Thumbs down.Reply

Something is wrong with the graph on the Compilation test (the -j3 for the dual core Athlon was in the Pentium 660 slot). We only ran -j3 on the dual core chips. I redid the graph and it should be rendering correctly now.

I tink tis article is fair. The Pentium D 820 is good for the price, if you don't already have a S939 mobo and RAM. It's not as ceap as you would think, becuase if the extra ~$100 for more expensive RAM, motherboard, and aftermarket HSF, but it's still cheaper for a whole system. For someone like myself who already has a S939 mobo, and DDR1 RAM, the X2s are a better bargain. The make -j3 tag should have been on all of te CPUs (it even makes non-HT single core CPUs faster), especially the 4200+.

When you get a chance, please get a 4400+, or lower your 4800+s (Anand's actually) multi to x11 so we can see how much cache affects a dual-core CPU (each core is sharing the same memory bandwidth that only one had to itself before, so even an A64 might be bandwidth limited).Reply

"If you can't admit that the D820 is a good performer at its price, then I don't know what's going on with you, but nowhere did he slam AMD along the way."

The D820 is really good for the price, especially if ram/mobo weren't issues. But saying you "pay through the nose" for the AMD chip and not the D840 at virtually the same price was pretty stunning.

"In our opinion, the Pentium D 820 is really an underdog in this roundup"
What the heck does that mean? The 820 looks like a really good multi-tasking performer for the dollar. How does that make it an "underdog?"

We've gotta give the guys a little slack on various errors, but in "Final Thoughts?" Should the concluding paragraphs where judgement and recommendations are handed out be read two or three times before releasing them? Or maybe by at least a second set of eyes?Reply

Gaming bechmarks are the ONLY benchmarks in this article where the Pentium D doesn't occupy the top spot. Find me another review site that shows this to be the case.

The D820 is definitely a good performer for its price, I'd never say otherwise. But there's no denying that Kris and his articles are slanted. There are no slams, but little statements like this:

"At $558 you pay through the nose for the additional performance of the Athlon 64 X2 4200+."

Attempt to portray AMD as the culprit, but the fact is, you pay through the nose for that additional performance whether you're looking at the 4200+ or the D840 (the latter of which is is actually the more expensive of the two).

Anand once said that visitors to his site, he found, were about 50/50 Intel or AMD users. Though statistically, it could go either way, there is no doubt in my mind that Kris' primary computer at home runs an Intel chip. It's written all over his articles.Reply

I don't see his analysis showing the Pentium CPUs "on top" at all. He specifically states that the AMD offering beats the pants off of Intel as usual in gaming, that the memory costs on the Intel boards are higher, and that the D820 and D840 don't suck quite as much as people want it to. He simply says that at the price point of $252, the D820 becomes a tempting option.

To sacrifice minimal overall performance and save $290 - memory costs is probably a very good suggestion and is warranted by the analysis. It's pretty impartial from here.

If you can't admit that the D820 is a good performer at its price, then I don't know what's going on with you, but nowhere did he slam AMD along the way.Reply

They're going for $660 on ZipZoomFly, which is sold out again, but they were in stock yesterday.

All I'm saying is, look around. Other review sites have come to the same conclusions: the AMD dual cores are better than their Intel couterpoints. Better deals? No. But this is not a "budget Linux dual core system" article, so let's leave the "best bang for your buck" talk for another time. I'd only ask that it be a performance-oriented review, like it claims to be, instead of him choosing to compare CPUs at only the price-point where Intel comes out on top. Cutting one CPU out because it's just $60 too much seems a bit arbitrary and biased to me.

I tend not to get worked up about the whole AMD vs. Intel stuff-- my laptop at home is runnning a Pentium 4 in it. But when I clicked on this article, and saw who wrote it, I knew EXACTLY which CPU was going to be at the top of the charts. That should never happen. That's all.Reply

I think the compiling graphic is simply in error. Why would the 660 have a-j3 score better than the D 820. That doesn't make much sense. I'd bet the X2 is supposed to occupy that space and the 660 and 640 got shifted down by accident.Reply

Now why do you suppose there are no -j3 compile times for any of the Athlons in the last compile test? The author sooo wants intel to look good, he just can't bear to see AMD's better times. Are we supposed to be stupid readers? Reply

Why the Athlon64 X2 has no -j3 compilation benchmarks?
Also, in short, one can compare the Intel D840 and the AMD X2 as they cost about the same. And not everyone will keep their mainboards, as not everyone upgrades every six months. I think most buyers will buy both a new mainboard and a new processor. I would have thought of buying myself an Athlon64, but I would like an Socket939, and I think their price (compared to the 754) are highway robbery.
I'll wait with the upgradeReply

None of his CPUs tested topped $600. Newegg has the 4400+ for $719. That is not in the same price range. He drew no unfavorable conclusions, finding AMD fantastic in gaming and showed its dual core option that competes with the D820 and D840 also performs well in multitasking environments.

Your high performance quote is meaningless when you look on the "the hardware" page and read: "These processors are a bit on the high end"

#19, If he wanted to do some equal price comparisons, there's also the 840 EE vs. the 4800+. Those should have been tested as well-- the article's talking about "high performance Linux machines", so the most prudent thing to do would be to show which CPU actually gives the best performance and let the reader know the respective prices, so that they can come to their own judgements.

If Kris wants to nail home the point that doller for dollar, the Intel CPUs are the better deal by omitting benchmarks of competing, though higher priced, CPUs, let him do it on his own time, on a site that doesn't have the same integrity and non-bias standards as Anandtech should.

There is only one dual core AMD chip being compared to two dual core Intel chips, despite the fact that the 4400+ is only a marginal increase in price. I suspect this is to keep his benchmark graphs more Intel-heavy near the top, but if it's because he simply doesn't have a 4400+ (they're in stock at Newegg and ZipZoomFly), as #20 suggests, then he should have waited to post the article until he had a more balanced roundup of CPUs.

Yeah I know my words are harsh, and I'm sorry. But this isn't the first time Kris has done this. It's irresponsible 'journalism' and reflects poorly on the site, and users *should* speak out against it.Reply

One thing to note, I usually run -j3 on my _single_ processor Celeron 466 *NIX workstation and get significantly better performance than a standard make. So really, performance numbers should have been shown for -j3 across the board, not just for the dual core parts.

He has mentioned (repeatedly) that he doesnt have an X2 4400 and that Anand is the one who has the X2 4800, so he had to make do with what he had. I, personally, like the article (though I hate pentium Ds ^^), just wish there was more data on some of the tests, heh.Reply

I think #7 has hit the nail on the head. One other large difference in the prices besides the memory is the extra $100+ spent on a 955x motherboard or a comparable nforce4 sli intel edition (not sure if these support dual core yet though). The price difference, as has been pointed out several time before, between the intel cpus and amd cpus is just about negated once you tack on the extra cost of the MB and memory.

You could definitely choose a 945 MB and save about $100 but I have yet to see the pentium D benched on that platform, and I don't think there is an sli platform for intel that's available for under $225.